A Decade of Progress Toward Ending the Intensive Confinement of Farm Animals in the United States

WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 5-2017 A Decade of Progress toward Ending the Intensive Confinement of Farm Animals in the United States Sara Shields Humane Society International Paul Shapiro The Humane Society of the United States Andrew Rowan Humane Society International Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/farawel Part of the Agribusiness Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons Recommended Citation Shields, S., Shapiro, P., & Rowan, A. (2017). A decade of progress toward ending the intensive confinement of farm animals in the United States. Animals, 7(5), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7050040 This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. animals Communication A Decade of Progress toward Ending the Intensive Confinement of Farm Animals in the United States Sara Shields 1,*, Paul Shapiro 2 and Andrew Rowan 1 1 Humane Society International, 1255 23rd Street, Northwest, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20037, USA; [email protected] 2 Humane Society of the United States, 700 Professional Drive Gaithersburg, MD 20879, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-202-676-2368 Academic Editors: Marina von Keyserlingk and Clive J. C. Phillips Received: 5 February 2017; Accepted: 9 May 2017; Published: 15 May 2017 Simple Summary: Over the past ten years, unprecedented changes in the way farm animals are kept on intensive production facilities have begun to take hold in the U.S. veal, egg and pork industries. Propelled by growing public support for animal welfare, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has successfully led the effort to transition farms from using restrictive cages and crates to more open aviary and group housing systems that offer the animals far more freedom to express natural behavior. This paper describes the background history of the movement, the strategy and approach of the campaign and the challenges that were overcome to enable this major shift in farming practices. The events chronicled are set within the context of the larger societal concern for animals and the important contributions of other animal protection organizations. Abstract: In this paper, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) farm animal protection work over the preceding decade is described from the perspective of the organization. Prior to 2002, there were few legal protections for animals on the farm, and in 2005, a new campaign at the HSUS began to advance state ballot initiatives throughout the country, with a decisive advancement in California (Proposition 2) that paved the way for further progress. Combining legislative work with undercover farm and slaughterhouse investigations, litigation and corporate engagement, the HSUS and fellow animal protection organizations have made substantial progress in transitioning the veal, pork and egg industries away from intensive confinement systems that keep the animals in cages and crates. Investigations have become an important tool for demonstrating widespread inhumane practices, building public support and convincing the retail sector to publish meaningful animal welfare policies. While federal legislation protecting animals on the farm stalled, there has been steady state-by-state progress, and this is complemented by major brands such as McDonald’s and Walmart pledging to purchase only from suppliers using cage-free and crate-free animal housing systems. The evolution of societal expectations regarding animals has helped propel the recent wave of progress and may also be driven, in part, by the work of animal protection organizations. Keywords: ballot initiatives; animal welfare; gestation crate; battery cage; veal 1. Introduction: The Nature of the Animal Protection Movement from 1980 to 2000 1.1. Henry Spira’s Influence Strategy in the modern animal protection movement was greatly influenced by Henry Spira, a particularly effective activist, teacher and writer with a background in civil rights and other social justice causes. Influenced by Peter Singer (the author of the book Animal Liberation), after taking Animals 2017, 7, 40; doi:10.3390/ani7050040 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals Animals 2017, 7, 40 2 of 28 the philosopher’s New York University class in 1974, Spira advanced the movement by carrying it beyond leafleting and protests. He insightfully narrowed the focus to very specific targets with obvious vulnerabilities, for example animal experiments that had questionable benefits to society, exposing them to the public in highly visible ways. An early target was the American Museum of Natural History, where cats were being intentionally blinded in experiments on their sexual behavior. Henry took note of key leverage points: taking the problem directly to the researcher’s funding bodies, coaxing the support of local politicians and enticing the media to spotlight the “cat-torture” being funded with taxpayer dollars. After early successes, including halting the museum’s cat experiments, he quickly moved on to larger targets, sending letters to the executives of multi-billion dollar corporations, including cosmetics giants Revlon and Procter & Gamble, and securing in-person meetings. He was keenly aware of the sensitivity of a brand’s image to associations with the inhumane treatment of animals and had an acute sense of social attitudes and where they overlapped with the priorities of the animal rights movement, focusing on the suffering of species kept as pets, as the public already valued kindness to dogs and cats. When his concerns were dismissed, he forced attention to the issue by taking out full page ads in the New York Times, linking companies to perceived cruelty in experimentation and vivisection. He was a pioneer of shareholder advocacy; buying enough stock in companies to propose a shareholder resolution. He was the first to take on agribusiness in a big way, meeting with Perdue in 1987 and McDonald’s in 1989 about the treatment of animals used in farming, an area that seemed insurmountable at the time. Spira influenced the style and approach of the whole next generation of animal advocates [1]. 1.2. Farm Animals and Early Legislative Initiatives The animal protection movement of the 1980s had focused on laboratory animals and animal testing, as well as dogs, other companion animals and wildlife. However, it was widely acknowledged that in terms of the numbers of animals affected, animals in agriculture dwarfed other human uses; while it was reported that there were about 11 million rodents, rabbits, dogs, cats and primates being used in laboratories in the United States [2] (p. 60) in 1982, 39 million cattle and calves, 83 million hogs [3] and over 4 billion broiler chickens were slaughtered for human food consumption [4] in the same year. Because there were few legal protections for animals on the farm, it was natural to start working toward the enactment of new laws. In Europe, farm animal welfare legislation was gaining traction, with restrictions on permanent tethering of pigs in 1991 [5] and calves in 1997 [6]. In 1999 an EU-wide ban on conventional cages for egg-laying hens was set to be phased in by 2012 [7,8]. However, in the United States, early federal legislation specific to farm animals was largely unsuccessful. On 6 June 1989, the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry held a joint hearing on H.R. 84, the Veal Calf Protection Act. Veal crates confine newly-born calves side-by-side in rows of stalls, typically measuring 66–76 cm (26–30 in) wide by 168 cm (66 in) long. The calves are tethered to the front with a chain or a rope. The calf’s movement is limited to a few steps forward or backward, lying down and standing up, but the calf is unable to turn around for the 16–18 weeks that he is confined, until he is led out for slaughter. The stalls are convenient for the producer and maximize space utilization, but veal crates are particularly restrictive for a young bovine, who is normally a playful, energetic, social animal [9]. Early polling showed the public was more concerned about veal calves than other farm animals [10], and the issue became emblematic of intensive farming. The principle sponsor of H.R. 84 was Congressman Charlie Bennett of the third District of Florida. Although the bill did not ban the use of veal crates, instead only mandating their minimum size, it met substantial opposition from the American Veal Association, certain animal scientists and cattle producers, who argued that the bill would put veal producers out of business, that it was based on emotion, that further research was necessary and that the bill would set a “dangerous precedent” for all of animal agriculture. Dr. Stanley Curtis from the University of Illinois called the law “naïve” and stated that “no behavioral need has been scientifically established for veal calves or any other Animals 2017, 7, 40 3 of 28 animal” [11]. Despite this, there was also considerable support for the bill, including testimony from the HSUS’s (Humane Society of the United States) vice president of Bioethics and Farm Animals, Dr. Michael Fox. However, the legislation was blocked from moving forward [11]. Given the strength and political influence of the industry lobby, it became clear that success in the United States would be more likely at the state level, where the public could weigh in using the ballot initiative process. This, too, was not easily achieved at first. In fact, there had been an attempt in Massachusetts in 1988 to use a citizen’s initiative petition to establish some protections for veal calves. This initiative was unsuccessful (losing by a vote of one third to two thirds) [10] in part because the major newspapers in Massachusetts did not support the measure, and the campaign was poorly planned and implemented.

Load more